IPCS ISSUE BRIEF
NO 07
MAY 2003
Preemptive Strike: Will it Secure
Indian Interests?
Suba Chandran
Research Officer, IPCS
“India has a much better case to go for
preemptive
action
[against
Pakistan]”
announced Yashwant Sinha the Indian External
Affairs Minister during the first week of April. He
also made a statement in the Rajya Sabha, “If
lack of democracy, possession of weapons of
mass destruction and export of terrorism were
reasons for a country to make a preemptive strike
in another country, then Pakistan deserved to be
tackled more than any other country.” (The
Hindu, 10 April 2003) Later, George Fernandes,
agreeing with Yashwant Sinha, stated, “Pakistan is
a [more] fit case than Iraq for a preemptive
strike.” (Hindustan Times, 13 April 2003)
Three questions need to be answered from an
Indian perspective ; Is there a case for
preemptive strike against Pakistan? how would it
be executed and for what purposes? and, would
such a strike serve India’s interests and bring
stability to the region?
Towards understanding preemptive strike
Preemptive strike can be defined as use of force
by a state against its adversary so as to prevent
an attack or to protect its security; it would
otherwise be disastrous, if it waits for its adversary
to take the first step. According to its advocates,
preemption is a strategy to protect a state if there
is an ‘imminent threat’ to its security. Mobilization
of the adversary’s army, navy and air force has
generally been defined as an imminent threat, for
which, it is argued, preemptive force is
permissible as an act of self defence.
Though Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the
“threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any State,”
Article 51 says, “nothing in the present Charter
shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations, until the
Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in exercise of this right
of self defence shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council.”
There should be an armed attack prior to the
preemptive strike for Article 51 to be applied.
However there is no unanimous interpretation of this
provision. The advocates of preemption say there is
no explicit mention of any prohibitions and the
states have the right to act. Since there is no
unanimous acceptance or rejection of whether an
armed attack is a necessary pre-condition for
preemption, it has generally been accepted that a
preemptive strike can be launched irrespective of a
prior armed attack.
Two events in the post World War II period have
been considered to be the classic cases of
preemptive strike. First, the Six Day War in 1967, in
which Israel used military force to preempt an
“imminent” attack by the Arab States. Second a
preemptive strike was carried out again by Israel,
when it attacked the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981.
Whereas the term “imminent” was used to justify
Israel’s 1967 preemption, by its supporters, the 1981
attack could not be so justified. Despite this, Israel
could get away with the attack due to the support
it enjoyed in the UN Security Council.
While there is no universally accepted explanation
or justification for preemptive strike and what
constitutes “imminent threat,” it has been
interpreted differently. The US National Security
Strategy 2002 has expanded this ‘imminent threat’
to include rogue states and terrorists who do not
PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: WILL IT SECURE INDIAN INTERESTS?
use conventional means. A rogue state is defined
as one that brutalizes its own people, displays no
regard for international law, threatens its
neighbours, is determined to acquire weapons of
mass destruction, sponsor terrorism and hate the
United States and everything for which it stands.
Indian perceptions of preemption have been
greatly shaped by the American strategy and
policy and, in fact, the concept of preemption in
India has gained importance ever since the
September 11 attacks and the evolving US
National Security Strategy.
Is there a case for preemptive strike against
Pakistan?
If one goes by this US definition of a rogue state,
then one must agree with our Defence and
External Affairs Ministers, and there is a case for
preemptive force against Pakistan. Besides
acquiring weapons of mass destruction, Pakistan
has also been accused by western sources of
proliferating them and there have been a number
of American reports linking Pakistan with North
Korea. Besides, it has been adequately proved,
that a section inside Pakistan both within and
outside the government, has been actively
involved in exporting terrorism to Afghanistan and
India. Despite the military regime’s support to the
US, there is wide spread hatred towards the US in
Pakistan and the emergence of the MMA is only a
manifestation of
this
statement.
Since there is no
Thus
Pakistan
unanimous acceptance or would present a
rejection of whether an fit case for the US
armed attack is a necessary to carryout a
preemptive
pre-condition for
strike, if it goes by
preemption, it has generally its own National
Security Strategy
been accepted that a
2002.
preemptive strike can be
launched irrespective of a
prior armed attack
The
critical
question would
be, does India
have
a case
against Pakistan to carryout a preemptive strike?
No doubt, Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons
and the militant attacks were carried out against
India from Pakistani soil. Even if one is to believe
the Pakistani version of the Kargil War, that the
intrusions were carried out by mujahideens, India
PAGE 2
has a clear case for carrying out a preemptive
strike, as armed attacks have taken place and
continues to take place. The international
community is aware that those who carryout
these armed attack are either overtly or covertly
supported by Pakistan. If Pakistan is to claim that it
does not support the mujahideens and that their
activities are autonomous, then India has an even
better case. This would show that the adversary is
incompetent or ineffective to control the armed
groups that impinge on the security of a
neighboring state; hence, the victim has every
right to take action in “self defence.” It is
immaterial, whether such an armed attack is to be
carried out by regular troops or irregular troops.
India has a strong case therefore to carry out a
preemptive strike against Pakistan.
Preemptive strike by whom, against whom and for
what?
Since the US has been making so much noise and
justifying its offensive in Afghanistan and Iraq as
preemption, India has been trying to project that
Pakistan deserves the same treatment. Another
section prefers independent action against
Pakistan by India, irrespective of what might be
the US response. Hot pursuit, surgical strikes and
limited war are the various strategies that this
group has been advocating in recent years,
especially since the nuclear tests and the Kargil
War. These strategies have been advocated in
India before and during the US war against the
Taliban.
What would be the aims of such an Indian
preemptive
action
against
Pakistan?
In
Afghanistan and Iraq, the US had the clear
objective of toppling the existing regimes and
physically eliminating certain individuals from the
scene. What would India like to achieve by way of
preemptive force on Pakistan? Over throw
General Musharraf? Alter the LoC in India’s
favour? Attack all militant camps and eliminate its
militant and jihadi leadership? The first two
objectives will simply not figure in these
calculations, as they are too large to be achieved
by a mere preemptive strike. If the objective is only
to wipe out terrorist camps in PoK, then India
should have carried out such a strike during the
Kargil War or immediately after the attack on the
Indian Parliament. If the objective is to alter the
LoC, India should have done that during the Kargil
NO 07
PAGE 3
war itself, when there was widespread internal
support for it. India would have been fully justified
and supported internationally and the pressure
would have been on Pakistan not to react had
India decided to cross the LoC then.
preemptive strike as part of a use-them-or-lose
them strategy? Either way, whether on
conventional or nuclear targets, an Indian
preemptive strike would only escalate the conflict,
even up to the nuclear level.
Secondly, since India’s case is based on armed
attacks by militants on its territory, anything
beyond attacking the militants would not be
perceived as being “proportional” to the
“imminent” threat. If the objective is to engage
Pakistan politically by applying military pressure,
then preemptive strike becomes meaningless, as
the Pakistani regime has repeatedly called for a
political dialogue.
Another factor which would not help any
aggressive Indian
action
is
the
political equation
inside
Pakistan ...India has been bracketed
which is unstable, with the US and Israel as
both inside and
being entities opposed to
outside
its
parliament. Both the Ummah. …Given these
the LFO and Iraq realities inside Pakistan, any
w a r
h a s
military adventure by India
distanced
the
military
regime would bring the regime and
from the main the rightist parties together
opposition party,
the MMA. Any at the cost of alienating the
military
option
liberal parties
adopted
by
India would bring
these two groups together inside Pakistan. Qazi
Hussain Ahmed, Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami had
already announced that in case of any threat
from India, it would stand by the military regime.
Will a preemptive strike ensure India’s security?
Whether it is a limited war or surgical strike or hot
pursuit, Pakistan’s response would be equally
serious. If one goes by the statements of its
important actors and by Pakistani counter
mobilization all along the border in 2002, any such
action by India would only aggravate its security
situation rather than addressing it. Given the
internal political conditions in Pakistan, the military
would be compelled to ‘perform’ against India, if
the latter decide to escalate the situation.
After the US war against terrorism and the military
regime’s support for it, the calculated and
carefully cultivated Afghan policy of Pakistan is in
shambles today. General Musharraf is under
enormous pressure to reshape his foreign policy,
especially his support to the US. Given this regional
backdrop, the military in Pakistan will not give up
its Kashmir policy. Hence it is unlikely that any
aggressive action by India would deter General
Musharraf to abandon Kashmir. In fact, he did not
do this during his the year long border
confrontation across the border.
Secondly, will preemptive strike secure Indian
interests against a nuclear Pakistan? Presuming
that the preemptive strike seeks to destroy
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons or its missiles, will an
attack be able to destroy all of them? If any such
strike is undertaken, Pakistan would not hesitate to
escalate the conflict into a nuclear one. If its
nuclear weapons cannot guarantee its security,
then why should it not decide to use them? Also, if
Pakistan is sure of any such Indian strike against its
own weapons systems, conventional and
otherwise, will it not be justified to undertake a
It should be understood, that inside Pakistan, India
has been bracketed with the US and Israel as
being entities opposed to the Ummah. This feeling
has been fuelled throughout the War against
terrorism and now against Iraq. Given these
realities inside Pakistan, any military adventure by
India would bring the regime and the rightist
parties together at the cost of alienating the
liberal parties. Such a course would, in the long
run, only increase the violence in Jammu and
Kashmir. Hence, a preemptive strike would not
fulfill any of India’s objectives, but also destabilize
the region further.
Instead, India should seriously pursue the recently
announced dialogue offer by the Prime Minister in
Srinagar. India should enter into a sustained and
structured dialogue with the democratically
elected leadership on all issues including Jammu
and Kashmir. This would strengthen the
democratic forces and the liberal society in
Pakistan which yearns for peace. This would serve
Indian interests better than letting the rightist
PREEMPTIVE STRIKE: WILL IT SECURE INDIAN INTERESTS?
PAGE 4
forces and the military come together.
Until all peaceful/political options are exercised,
there should be no contemplating of a military
strike. There is an immediate need to discuss the
objectives of the use of preemptive force by India,
and initiate a debate to discuss whether this
option would really serve India’s security interests,
irrespective of whether there is a case against
Pakistan or not. The US formulated its National
Security Strategy in September 2002, providing in
detail what the government sees as a threat and
how it would like to meet them. Following its
publication there has been widespread debate
amongst its strategic community on whether it is
feasible or not. It was through this debate that the
US managed to garner support for its war effort
against Iraq, despite criticism and condemnation
at the global level. India could very well initiate
such a process with the much publicized but
never published White Paper on ISI activities in
India.
To conclude, there may well be a case for a
preemptive strike against Pakistan by India;
however such a strategy would be too dangerous,
as it would escalate the conflict between the two
countries. Any such attack on conventional or
nuclear forces in Pakistan by India would not
succeed in destroying all its nuclear weapon and
missile systems. The attack on militant targets
inside Pakistan or in PoK would only aggravate the
conflict situation and violence in Jammu and
Kashmir. A preemptive strike against Pakistan
would not achieve any tangible military or political
objectives for India.
INSTITUTE OF PEACE
AND
CONFLICT STUDIES
B 7/3 Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi 110029 INDIA